In October 2024, the lawsuit Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters was filed on behalf of many Oklahoma families, teachers, and faith leaders to block Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials to integrate into public school education. Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Supreme Court temporarily blocked any attempt to buy Bibles and Bible-based instructional materials, in addition to Waltersn dropping the Bible-buying plan after pushback from the legislature.
However, the same day Walters dropped the plan to buy Bibles, Walters announced a Bibles Back in School Campaign, which functions as an indirect purchasing scheme to integrate the Bible into the classroom. This campaign asks people to buy President Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bibles” through a special website. The Bibles purchased are automatically donated to the OSDE, run by Walters, to be then distributed to the Oklahoma public schools.
In the most recent filing by the plaintiffs, they ask the court to issue an order prohibiting state officials from taking any action to implement the Bibles Back to School Camplagn and distributing bibles to public schools, ultimately trying to stop Walters’ latest action from getting bibles in public school classrooms.
Are Walters’ and the OSDE’s attempts and actions, including direct purchasing of Bibles for the classroom and the Bibles Back to School Camplagn, in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? I say absolutely yes.
I draw on McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Stone v. Graham (1980) to come to this conclusion.
McCollum held that a program that allowed the use of public school classrooms for religious classes constituted the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between school authorities and the religious council, and thus is in violation of the Establishment Clause. This case sets a reinforced precedent of a strict separation of church and state, which works against Walters and the OSDE's push to get Bibles in the classroom. Just as McCollum struck down religious instruction in public schools, placing Bibles in classrooms—even if they are not required reading—sends an implicit government endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause.
The Stone case involved a number of parents who challenged Kentucky state statute that required posting a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public classroom and filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky. These copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private contributions. This case is eerily similar to the issue present in Oklahoma today. In Stone, the majority held that the Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the Consitution, stating that the requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms has no secular legislative purpose and was plainly religious in nature, despite its historical relevance.
In reaction to the lawsuit, Walters states, “It is not possible for our students to understand American history and culture without understanding the Biblical principles from which they came”. However, the outcome of Stone explicitly rejects this defense, as it set the precedent that the government cannot use public schools to promote religion/religious texts, even if they can be considered historically or morally significant.
Additionally, it can be argued that mandated Bibles are more religious than the Ten Commandments, meaning if posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is unconstitutional, placing Bibles in the classroom is even more so.
Furthermore, even if the Bibles are not a mandatory reading, they still send a religious message. The Kentucky Law did not require students to engage with the Ten Commandments, yet it was still struck down in part because of the message it could send. Likewise, just having Bibles in classrooms sends a government-sponsored religious message.
In addition to drawing on precedents set by McCollum and Stone, I have used the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to determine whether the actions of Oklahoma Superintendent Walters and the OSDE violate the Establishment Clause. Although the Lemon Test was recently abandoned in the outcome of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), I still find the Lemon Test to be a useful tool to evaluate the actions of Walters and the OSDE. The Lemon Test states that for a government action to be constitutional, it must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Walters and the OSDE’s actions to put Bibles in public schools ultimately fails the Lemon Test. The primary intent of these actions is to promote religious values, has the primary effect of advancing Christianity, and the actions excessively intertwine the government with religion. Thus, the action of Walters and the OSDE violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The actions of Walters and the OSDE doesn't just use state-funded resources to support religion; it favors one religion over others. The version of the Bible Walters wants to put in the classroom, the “God Bless the USA Bibles”, is a Protestant version of the Bible. As I mentioned before, simply having the Bible in the classroom constitutes a government-sponsored religious message which the Supreme Court has consistently ruled unconstitutional. By selecting a Protestant version of the Bible, Walters and the OSDE are not only endorsing Christianity but also favoring one Christian denomination over others, exacerbating the Establishment Clause violation. It sends a clear message that Protestant Christianity is the preferred or endorsed religion in Oklahoma public schools.
In conclusion, Walters’ and the OSDE’s actions to integrate Bibles into public schools, whether through direct purchases or the Bibles Back to School Campaign, clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. McCollum and Stone set strong precedents against using public schools to promote religious texts, and even under the Lemon Test, these actions fail constitutional scrutiny. By favoring a Protestant version of the Bible, Walters is not only promoting religion but also favoring one denomination, further deepening the constitutional violation. Ultimately, this initiative is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion and should be struck down.
Sources:
https://www.au.org/the-latest/press/oklahomans-urge-supreme-court-stop-ryan-walters/
https://www.news9.com/story/671134636b0f12d4031e328a/okla-families-teachers--faith-leaders-file-lawsuit-against-ryan-walters-bible-education-mandate
https://ministrywatch.com/ok-legislative-turndown-sparks-fundraising-campaign-for-school-bibles/
2 comments:
This case seems pretty cut and dry as their reasoning for attempting to implement the Christian bible exclusively. I believe that even those who dissented in Stone V. Graham would agree because their argument for dissenting was that the legislatures intentions for enacting the law in that case was irreligious in nature. In this case however, the argument that students can't; "understand American history and culture without understanding the Biblical principles from which they came" is a statement endorsing the Christian perspective.
I strongly agree with your stance that Walters' plan is in violation of the Establishment Clause. Merely having Protestant bibles in classrooms sends a message of government endorsement of a specific religion, regardless of whether students are required to read them. Walters' historical significance argument is effectively dismantled by the Stone v. Graham case, which rejected the same reasoning for having the Ten Commandments in schools.
Post a Comment